UDWiki:Poll/Classifying Suburb Groups: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 37: Line 37:
*'''THIS IS NOT A VOTE.''' This is merely a tool for us, as a community, to (hopefully) come to some form of a consensus on how we feel about the current system, and whether or not there may be a better one. Please keep this in mind as you read the poll.
*'''THIS IS NOT A VOTE.''' This is merely a tool for us, as a community, to (hopefully) come to some form of a consensus on how we feel about the current system, and whether or not there may be a better one. Please keep this in mind as you read the poll.


=Poll is not open, but will open on the 6th. These are the current questions:=
=Polling is now open. The poll points are listed below. Answer as many or as few as you wish.=
==1. The current system lists groups as either: Survivor, Zombie, or Hostile. Do you wish to change this classification system?==
==1. The current system lists groups as either: Survivor, Zombie, or Hostile. Do you wish to change this classification system?==
Please number (<nowiki>#</nowiki>) and time-stamp your signature underneath one of the two answers below. You may select '''only one.'''
Please number (<nowiki>#</nowiki>) and time-stamp your signature underneath one of the two answers below. You may select '''only one.'''
Line 60: Line 60:
===I disagree.===
===I disagree.===


==3. Improved Classification vs Conflict Resolution==
==3. Deciding on a group's classification==
The current general consensus is that a group's playing style dictates how they are classified on the suburb listings. Should group classification be dictated only by groups? Please number (#) and timestamp your signature below the statement best describes your opinion on this subject.
 
===A group's playing style should dictate how they are listed.===
 
===The groups should decide how they are listed.===
 
===Neither option works very well. I'd rather go with something else.===
 
==4. Improved Classification vs Conflict Resolution==
There are two main reasons for the desire to change the current classification system:  
There are two main reasons for the desire to change the current classification system:  
:*To improve the scope, accuracy or ease-of-use for classifying suburb groups.
:*To improve the scope, accuracy or ease-of-use for classifying suburb groups.
Line 74: Line 83:
===Neither improved classification nor reduced conflicts are important to me at all===
===Neither improved classification nor reduced conflicts are important to me at all===


==4. Types of changes==
==5. Types of changes==
There are three general types of changes proposed:  
There are three general types of changes proposed:  
:*Expanded classification  
:*Expanded classification  
Line 87: Line 96:
===Only the language of the classification system should be changed===
===Only the language of the classification system should be changed===


==5. What Information Should Group Categories provide?==
==6. What Information Should Group Categories provide?==
Group classification systems can provide a variety of information, from how many groups are in a given suburb to some basic descriptor about that group. The current system tells us:
Group classification systems can provide a variety of information, from how many groups are in a given suburb to some basic descriptor about that group. The current system tells us:
*How many groups are in the suburb.
*How many groups are in the suburb.
Line 99: Line 108:
===Both are equally as important to me.===
===Both are equally as important to me.===


==6. Type of Classifier==
==7. Type of Classifier==
There are three general types of proposed classifiers:
There are three general types of proposed classifiers:
:*Classifiers that group based on player-classes. In this system, survivor groups are composed of Military, Civilian, and Scientist classes. Zombie groups are composed of the "Corpse" class.A third grouping would be composed of both.
:*Classifiers that group based on player-classes. In this system, survivor groups are composed of Military, Civilian, and Scientist classes. Zombie groups are composed of the "Corpse" class.A third grouping would be composed of both.
Line 112: Line 121:
===Classifying groups based on their current active/not active status is more important to me.===
===Classifying groups based on their current active/not active status is more important to me.===


==7. Groups that are not easily classified==
==8. Groups that are not easily classified==
How should groups that do not fall neatly into a category be handled?
How should groups that do not fall neatly into a category be handled?
===Groups should just pick the category that they think works best for them.===
===Groups should just pick the category that they think works best for them.===
Line 120: Line 129:
===There should be an "Other" category for groups to use. If they want a more detailed description, they should create a one or two-word descriptor by their name.===
===There should be an "Other" category for groups to use. If they want a more detailed description, they should create a one or two-word descriptor by their name.===


==8. Dual Nature and Combined Zombie/Survivor Groups==
==9. Dual Nature and Combined Zombie/Survivor Groups==


Dual Nature is an in-game philosophy where players play the game based on their current in-game state (dead or alive). Some groups have members who are both zombies and survivors. Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes how you would feel Dual Nature groups or groups composed of both zombies and survivors should be classified (if at all). '''You may select only one.'''
Dual Nature is an in-game philosophy where players play the game based on their current in-game state (dead or alive). Some groups have members who are both zombies and survivors. Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes how you would feel Dual Nature groups or groups composed of both zombies and survivors should be classified (if at all). '''You may select only one.'''
Line 130: Line 139:
===I do not think it is necessary to create a new category for these groups. ===
===I do not think it is necessary to create a new category for these groups. ===


==9. Alternative Group Suburb Classifications==
==10. Alternative Group Suburb Classifications==
Below is a randomly ordered list of proposed classification systems. Please number (<nowiki>#</nowiki>) and time-stamp your signature underneath the ones that you agree with. You '''may select more than one.'''
Below is a randomly ordered list of proposed classification systems. Please number (<nowiki>#</nowiki>) and time-stamp your signature underneath the ones that you agree with. You '''may select more than one.'''



Revision as of 08:35, 6 March 2011

This poll is now under discussion

Don't vote yet.

Please read through it, and leave feedback on the poll's talk page with any changes you think should be made. At this stage, the main things are:

  1. Make sure that the questions we are asking will help reach some from of consensus on the how suburb groups should be classified.
  2. Make sure that the poll itself is both easy to understand and fair.

The poll will not open until March 6th, 2011 at the earliest.

Purpose of this Poll

Over the last five years, Urban Dead has matured as a game, and with that maturity, both the number and themes of Urban Dead groups has grown. Currently, all groups are listed in their suburb(s) of choice under one of three categories: Survivor, Zombie, or Hostile. The purpose of this poll is very simple:

  • Given the diverse growth of group types over the last couple of years (PKer, GKer, Dual-Nature, Life-cultist, Death-cultist, the Penultimate Zombie-Killing God with a Suborbital Laser Cannon, etc), do we, as a community, feel that our current classifications:
  1. accurately describe or classify the groups that do exist in a given suburb.
  2. are actually useful as an information resource for players?
  3. allow Group Leaders, especially new ones, to classify their group in a suburb both easily and quickly, with little confusion in classifier meaning?
  • If we feel the current system falls short, what criteria are important to us as a community? What, exactly, do we want to see changed?
  • If we feel the current system falls short, is there a better system?

Polling Guidelines

This poll will ask for your viewpoint on several issues related to classifying groups in suburbs. For each question:

  • Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the response you agree most of this.
  • For some questions, you can choose more than response. For those, please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the responses you agree with.
  • Please limit discussion to the talk page.

Things to keep in mind

  • The UD wiki is a gaming resource. Individual suburb pages should be as informative as possible, especially for new players who may not know the history of a suburb. Likewise, group classifications should also be as informative as possible. We should strive for a system such that a new player can goto a suburb page and at a glance, know:
  1. How many groups are in / have been in that suburb.
  2. What type of group are they.
  3. What those type classifiers actually mean.
  • Any classification system we choose should be able to classify a wide range of group types that currently exist in Urban Dead. Before you finish this poll, please go to the talk page, read the sample list of groups pulled from a variety of suburbs, and ask yourself the following:
"Can the current/proposed system I am looking at now classify this list of groups easily?"
  • Any classification system we choose should be easy to understand, especially for new players. As you read the poll, pretend you are a new group leader who barely knows how make a group page, and ask yourself the following:
"Do I at a glance know what all these divisions mean in a given classification system, and is it easy for me to place my group into one of those divisions?"
  • THIS IS NOT A VOTE. This is merely a tool for us, as a community, to (hopefully) come to some form of a consensus on how we feel about the current system, and whether or not there may be a better one. Please keep this in mind as you read the poll.

Polling is now open. The poll points are listed below. Answer as many or as few as you wish.

1. The current system lists groups as either: Survivor, Zombie, or Hostile. Do you wish to change this classification system?

Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath one of the two answers below. You may select only one.

I do not wish to see the system changed. I am either satisfied with the current classification system, or I do not care what classifications are used.

I do wish to see the system changed. I am not satisfied with the current classification system.

2. The template guidelines for adding groups to suburb pages should be updated.

The current guidelines for the Suburb Group template are as follows:

  1. Each group category is its own list, and each list of groups should be sorted in alphabetical order.
  2. Group names must be links to the wiki pages for those groups. They shouldn't link to other articles (e.g. buildings or other locations), nor should they just be plain text.
  3. When "a", "an", or "the" are at the start of a group name, ignore them for purposes of alphabetization. E.g. "The Burchell Arms Regulars" would come before "Malton Police Department" since "B" comes before "M".
  4. Always include a group icon. If the group currently does not have a group icon, use the [[Image:NoGroupIcon.jpg|25px]] icon instead. It looks like this: NoGroupIcon.jpg
  5. The group icon should always be scaled to 25x25 or smaller. In the case that an image is larger include the |25px]] to scale it down to a reasonable size (its height must still be 25px or less).
  6. If the group name is too long (i.e. wraps below the group icon) consider using an acronym (e.g. "Dunell Hills Police Department" = "DHPD")
  7. Organizations of groups (e.g. DEM, South West Alliance, Dulston Alliance) should not be added to the listing.

Please indicate below if you feel these guidelines should be updated. If you feel they should be updated, add a numbered (#) timestamp under the I Agree heading. If you feel they are fine the way they are, add a numbered (#) timestamp under the I Disagree heading.

I agree.

I disagree.

3. Deciding on a group's classification

The current general consensus is that a group's playing style dictates how they are classified on the suburb listings. Should group classification be dictated only by groups? Please number (#) and timestamp your signature below the statement best describes your opinion on this subject.

A group's playing style should dictate how they are listed.

The groups should decide how they are listed.

Neither option works very well. I'd rather go with something else.

4. Improved Classification vs Conflict Resolution

There are two main reasons for the desire to change the current classification system:

  • To improve the scope, accuracy or ease-of-use for classifying suburb groups.
  • To help decrease or stop conflicts caused by disagreements in how groups are listed.

Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes your reasons for wanting change. You may select only one.

The scope of the current classification system is limited and I feel it should be changed to reflect how the game has evolved.

I feel the current system should be changed to decrease or eliminate conflicts over how groups are classified.

Both improved classification and reduced conflicts are equally important to me

Neither improved classification nor reduced conflicts are important to me at all

5. Types of changes

There are three general types of changes proposed:

  • Expanded classification
  • Reduced classification
  • Changes in the classification language.

Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes the changes you would like to see if a new classification system is made.

There should be more group types added to the list of classifications

There should be fewer group types on the list of classifications

Only the language of the classification system should be changed

6. What Information Should Group Categories provide?

Group classification systems can provide a variety of information, from how many groups are in a given suburb to some basic descriptor about that group. The current system tells us:

  • How many groups are in the suburb.
  • What their names are .
  • What type (Zombie, Survivor, and Hostile) that group belongs to.

What information do you want the suburb page to provide to you?

I think it is more important to know how many groups are in a suburb and their names.

I think it is more important to know what type of groups are in a suburb.

Both are equally as important to me.

7. Type of Classifier

There are three general types of proposed classifiers:

  • Classifiers that group based on player-classes. In this system, survivor groups are composed of Military, Civilian, and Scientist classes. Zombie groups are composed of the "Corpse" class.A third grouping would be composed of both.
  • Classifiers that group based on play-style. In this system, groups are played on how they play the game. For example, in one system, "Survivor" groups might be ones that actively protect a suburb or survivor-classes. "Zombie" groups might be ones that are actively trying to kill survivor-classes. "Hostile" groups might be ones that are actively trying to impede both "Survivor" and "Zombie" groups, or just one.
  • Classifers that group based on group-status. In this system, groups are either "Active," or "Not Active / Historical."

What type of classifier is important to you? You may select more than one.

Classifying groups based on player-class is more important to me

Classifying groups based on play-style is more important to me.

Classifying groups based on their current active/not active status is more important to me.

8. Groups that are not easily classified

How should groups that do not fall neatly into a category be handled?

Groups should just pick the category that they think works best for them.

Groups should create a new category on a suburb-by-suburb basis that describes their group more accurately.

There should be an "Other" category for groups to use. If they want a more detailed description, they should create a one or two-word descriptor by their name.

9. Dual Nature and Combined Zombie/Survivor Groups

Dual Nature is an in-game philosophy where players play the game based on their current in-game state (dead or alive). Some groups have members who are both zombies and survivors. Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes how you would feel Dual Nature groups or groups composed of both zombies and survivors should be classified (if at all). You may select only one.

I would like to see Dual Nature and Combined Zombie/Survivor added as it's own separate category

I like the idea of having a category for either Dual Nature or Combined Zombie/Survivor groups, but there needs to be a better name.

I do not think it is necessary to create a new category for these groups.

10. Alternative Group Suburb Classifications

Below is a randomly ordered list of proposed classification systems. Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the ones that you agree with. You may select more than one.

Hostile to Zombies / Hostile to Survivor / Hostile to Both / Hostile to no one

Attacks Zombies / Attacks Survivors / Attacks Both / Attacks Neither

Pro-Survivor / Pro-Zombie / Indifferent

Survivor / Zombie / Independent

Keep the same system but add a "At War With..." to list specific groups in conflict on suburb pages

Alive / Dead / Other

Survivor / Zombie / Independent / Dual Nature

Groups

Active Groups / Historic Groups

Survivor / Zombie / Dual Nature

Living / Dead / Other

_